The Philisophical Logic of the Universe

So Kurt Gödel figured out completeness, or more importantly incompleteness. So what good are they. I haven’t yet found whether this universe must not be inconsistent. It seems intuitive that it must not be inconsistent, otherwise the inconsistent objects may very well start a chain that would devour the entire universe.

So … Hey … theoretical physicists out there … Could it be that particle/anti-particle pair annihilation is the meeting of two objects that form a paradox … in 1 dimension … Then the event horizon, being a surface … closed, finite support, bla bla bla … is the interface between to regions that represent an approach to a “boundary of inconsistency” wherein nothing can cross the boundary, but only rather approach it? This is a question of the philosophy behind it all, just like Schrödinger’s cat.

The equations of the pair I don’t know at all. The equations that represent the space near the event horizon, I do know. There is a 1/x^r term at the event horizon, so it has a pole there. But there are equations that seem to lead to a paradox. Xeno and Ramanujan come to mind. Xeno was naive and L’Hôpital trunps Xeno to let us pass the threshold. Ramanujan was not so uninformed and produced his work to demonstrate some of the really tough problems of the maths.

SOoo …

Is the universe complete … or is it consistent … ???

Just a thought I had.